Books

Taxpayers rejoice! The science-propaganda agency is gone for good. One down — scores to go.

Tony Abbott was sworn in yesterday. Today Greg Hunt rang Tim Flannery to tell him the commission is closed. His $180,000 3-day-a-week job as a sales agent for “climate change” is over.

BREAKING (ABC): The Abbott Government has abolished the Climate Commission, pushing ahead with its plan to scrap government bodies associated with Labor’s carbon pricing scheme and climate change policy.

The commission was set up under then prime minister Julia Gillard in February 2011 as an independent body “to provide reliable and authoritative” information on climate change.

Jo Nova applauds the Abbott government decision to cut waste and to stop funding an inept unscientific agency which was unbalanced to the point of being government advertising in disguise. Today is a great day for taxpayers. This agency propped up billions of dollars in pointless futile government spending trying to change the weather. Nothing will bring back money spent on desal plants that were mothballed when the floods came that real scientists predicted. [...]

“What we can now see is the emerging inevitability that renewables are going to be running the economy…”

And I say: Prepare for economic armageddon. Picture an Australia where we all have jobs — jobs digging holes, mucking out the stables, and chopping those last few remaining trees down. We may lead the world installing chinese-made solar panels, but they won’t help us make anything that anyone else wants to buy. Anton gives us some numbers no one seems to have mentioned to Tim. Like, it takes 1,000 new wind towers to kinda equal one coal plant. – Jo

—————————————

Guest Post: Anton Lang

Get ready — this is how much the 25 most recent, powerful, high-tech wind plants generate. Not the red line — that’s how much electricity we used. Look at the expanse under the blue line — every bit of that (“bit” being the word) is all thanks to those brand spanking new wind turbines.

Courtesy of the National Electricity Market. (NEM)

The red line at the top shows total electricity demand for NSW, Vic, Qld, SA, and Tasmania [...]

If Alan Jones needs to get “educated” because he got the level of CO2 wrong once, the Climate Commission surely needs to go back to do high school maths, because anyone who has done junior high can see that the running average in the graph below is an impossibility. The latest Climate Commission report: “The Critical Decade: Queensland climate impact and opportunities” starts with blatantly incorrect figure. Since when do “averages” run outside the extreme highs and lows? Thanks to reader Ian E.

Eyeballing this graph suggests Queensland’s average temperature has risen by 2.7 C since the 1950′s.

The text on the same page says: “The average temperature for Queensland has risen by about 1°C since early last century”. So at least the writing matches the official (if exaggerated) records.

Who proof-read this document?

Three professors (Will Steffen, Lesley Hughes, Veena Sahajwalla) and Mr Gerry Hueston, all Climate Commissioners, signed off on it.

The correct graph should look more like this.

(Graphed by Ian E)

Even the 1 degree trend in this graph above is likely to be exaggerated [...]

Tim Flannery is paid to help you understand why Australia is getting a Carbon Tax in eight weeks time. If you can’t fathom why the nation which emits just 1.3% of all man-made CO2 is going to pay three times the current market rate to reduce world temperatures by 0.00 degrees C, I’m sure Prof Tim will be delighted to help. Do book quickly. Sometimes these events sell out (even before they are publicized).

Australia’s Chief Climate Commissioner, Professor Tim Flannery, is visiting Sydney. The sixth biggest CBD in the country, Parramatta will host the next public forum for the Climate Commission. This is your opportunity to get involved in the conversation about climate change.

The Climate Commission provides independent, authoritative information on climate change to the Australian public.

The Key Messages[1] summary of The Critical Decade[2] opens with a ringing statement of hyperbole:

Over many decades thousands of scientists have painted an unambiguous picture: the global climate is changing and humanity is almost surely the primary cause. The risks have never been clearer and the case for action has never been more urgent.

This declaration establishes two things. The first sentence signals that the report is committed to repeating the conclusions of the 4th Assessment Report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC)[3], conclusions that are essentially reliant on computer modelling and lack empirical support. And the second signals that the report is long on opinionated analysis and political advocacy but devoid of objective risk analysis.

The latest Climate Commission report has created a media frenzy all over Australia — though on the plus side, I know a few skeptics who have been interviewed on radio stations in the last 24 hours.

As usual, the well funded team produce a long 72 page effort that says very little that’s new. Curiously the graphic designers didn’t try as hard as they normally do. Where are the full color shots of a fragile Planet Earth? Where are the mandatory fields of baked-dry-mud? Maybe clip art is trendy now? Or maybe, just possibly, this document was slapped together at the last minute by a desperate department on the run from the crashing polls?

Apart from the sea of logical errors and half-truths, what is a sad mark of the times, is that despite all the taxpayer money, they can’t even produce a statement they will stand by. This is NOT a document that underscores decisions with billions of dollars at stake. It’s just for general information, and if the weather gets cold instead of warm, if people drown in floods they didn’t predict or build desalination plants that won’t be needed, it’s not their fault. “Don’t sue me”.

[I just love this graph. It's so over-the-top, it's like a "Pepsi-climate" ad -JN]

They reckon we have to stabilize carbon dioxide emissions immediately or we’ll fry. But these forecasts are based solely on what are essentially the same faulty climate models as in 1988, and are similarly exaggerated.

Their Earlier Scary Forecast Was Bunk

U.S. government climate scientists started the climate scare with a forecast to the U.S. Congress in 1988 which was based on climate models. Here it is, with the actual temperature that eventuated later added in red:

The Government says it wants a “climate expert” to sell the message to the public, and who do they pick? A small mammal expert whose predictions on the climate are so wrong any normal person would slink off in shame. But not Flannery, the Teflon prophet, reality doesn’t stick to him. How can it be that the outrageously wrong get away with it with reputations intact (and get rewarded too)? Blame the mainstream media. Blame also a government that thinks it’s a good use of public money to promote known failures.

Flannery will be paid $180,000 a year to be part-time chairman of the Gillard Government’s Climate Commission, to convince us to agree to her plans to “put a price on carbon”. In other words, he’s not an expert in climate science but in science-PR. Bolt describes how Flannery changes his PR tune to suit his employers. The man has no scruples.

He claims the “committee is independent”. But we all know that they will come to no other conclusion that to support a tax, call carbon “pollution”, and rave about all the evidence (that they can’t name specifically). That $5.6 million dollar committee is just a thinly disguised $5.6 [...]